From sentto-44114-15838-1032394202-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Wed Sep 18 17:12:18 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 18 Sep 2002 17:12:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from n11.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.66]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17rovY-0007jh-00 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Wed, 18 Sep 2002 17:12:16 -0700 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-15838-1032394202-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.194] by n11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 19 Sep 2002 00:10:02 -0000 X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 19 Sep 2002 00:10:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 46374 invoked from network); 19 Sep 2002 00:10:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m12.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 19 Sep 2002 00:10:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.147) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Sep 2002 00:10:01 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 18 Sep 2002 17:10:01 -0700 Received: from 200.69.6.27 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 00:10:00 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Sep 2002 00:10:01.0038 (UTC) FILETIME=[E5745EE0:01C25F70] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.69.6.27] X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 00:10:00 +0000 Subject: Re: [lojban] lo'e, le'e, tu'o Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 1326 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list la and cusku di'e >It seems to me that what is essentially >going on in these exx -- and also generally with generic >reference -- is that a category is being conceptualized as >a single individual ("myopic singularization"). E.g. it is >quite easy to think of Chocolate as a single individual, >and "I like chocolate" means the same as "I like Chocolate". Yes, definitely. I think "myopic sigularization" is a very good description of what goes on. If you start from the point of view of seeing the category in its extension, then {lo'e} collapses the extension into one individual. If you start from the intension, then {lo'e} simply blocks the move to the extension. I don't think this conflicts with the description in terms of the kairbroda predicates. >So on this basis I understand your use of {lo'e} and agree >with it. The question that remains in my mind is whether >there is a difference between {lo'e broda} and {tu'o broda}. I can't see any difference. >BTW, this automatically gives us a useful meaning for >{le'e} -- it would mean {(ro) le pa}. Don't you mean {tu'o le tu'o}? mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> 4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/MVfIAA/GSaulB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/